This may be the most important column I’ve read in a while:

When I decided to run for US Senate, 10 years had elapsed since my last previous run for office. In politics, where most everything has a short half-life, that is… forever.

I view campaigns through what I call the 3Ms model (hopefully, that giant corporation won’t sue my ass; or maybe it safer to come up with a slightly different moniker): Message, Media and Money. In a nutshell:

  • Message. A successful campaign needs a message that is authentic, relevant and which connects with voters.

  • Media. A quality message means nothing if no one finds out about it. To me, media comprises anything that actually helps get a candidate’s message to voters. This can comprise everything from expensive TV all the way down to retail door-to-door knocking (and everything in between).

  • Money. Media (and organization) can be expensive - frighteningly so. While many DC consultants use money as a measuring stick of viability, my view was I simply needed enough financial resources to run a successful campaign with the end goal being to win the election.

Side Note: after two close prior runs (one of which I may have actually won), I got destroyed in my Senate race. The rise of Trump and MAGA in the already reddest state in the country was simply too much to overcome.

As the author in the article I linked to above relates, the lack of any Dem/progressive leaning “sustainable media advocacy outlets” severely hampered my runs (and runs of all other Dems). As I related to the chair of the DCCC at one point (using a mountain climbing analogy - hey, I live in… the mountains), “After my first campaign I felt like I reached the Hillary Step of Everest, mere meters from the summit. Yet, one year later when I decided to run again, I felt like I was starting all over back at base camp”. Simply put, there was minimal outside support - media wise and even initially, financially - to bolster my candidacy/policies in any meaningful way. There had been no sustainable advocacy in the interim between races. While we absolutely adapted our media strategy to include social media, live online forums, etc., it was never going to be enough.

I believe there are two prerequisites to long term success in any venture or organization: tenacity and adaptability. To put it bluntly, from an infrastructure perspective, Dems lag in both compared to the opposition.

Read the column - if we want good policy, it’s worth our time and effort to find a way forward…

Reply

Avatar

or to participate

Avatar

Kay W.1 year ago

And if you’re a poor steward of small dollar donor funds, I would submit you’ll also be a poor steward of public funds, so shouldn’t get the job anyway.

Avatar

Kay W.1 year ago

I think “we” (collectively) should start demanding better use of the massive amounts of small dollar donation we give. It isn’t just dumb to pour money into tv ads the last four weeks and do nothing in between, it’s also wasteful, and means the pol is a poor steward of donor funds. Recipients of donated funds have a duty to spend those funds in responsible and useful ways, and that does NOT include hiring crony firms and consultants.

Avatar

Joe is Wypoxic1 year ago

totally agree Kay

Avatar

mister mixAuthor1 year ago

There’s plenty of money for endless TV ads, but the DNC, DCCC and DSCC never want to invest in a lasting media play to keep our message front and center — especially after we’ve lost, like now. That said, the consultants in charge right now would just fuck it up via malicious compliance. They are wedded to the “big TV ads a couple of months every two years” media strategy. It pays for their yachts and summer homes.

Avatar

Joe is Wypoxic1 year ago

That’s why I fired to of them who were mandated by the DCCC during my second House run…

SOS (Same Old Shit)

Avatar

Scott H1 year ago

That's why you lost. :)

Avatar

Scott H1 year ago

In case I wasn't clear, I was being very sarcastic there.

Avatar

Scott H1 year ago

Butbutbut, it's not about that, it's about spending too much time on "trans athuleeets" or how we should "running forced birthers in red states", or throwing organized labor under the bus, etc, etc., in order to be "competitive". Those kinds of "dems" are considered "talented".

And when you bring up core issues Dem "leadership" runs on, you're told "you're sexist" or "you're racist", as a way to basically say "SQUIRREL!!!!".

No, your candidates who promote decidedly anti-POC , anti-working class (across all ethnicities despite your efforts to say it's always about 'whites') are simply unappealing and uninspiring.

There's a reason that the oysterman, despite all the shit (and his decidedly not-great response) that's come out about him continues to draw very big crowds in ME.